🔗 Share this article

LWe must start with the core issue: Bill Gates denies political realities. While he was slow to accept it, he now accepts the realities of climate science. But he operates in blatant, cringeworthy denial about how politics works. His new piece on climate, shared days ago, approaches climate change without political context. He pens words that disregard governmental authority, and as if extreme wealth didn't exist.

Central Claim

His key position states that funds are very limited, so the delegates at this month's climate summit in Brazil should direct money away from "short-term pollution targets" towards environmental adjustment and spending on poverty and disease.

Yes, the funds available for any good cause are scarce, but this isn't due to universal principles, some implacable truth about human society. It's because oligarchic power has waged war on benign state spending, leading to the destruction of USAID and severe reductions in assistance funding of additional nations. Financial restraint stems from policy choices. The decision to impose it is driven by leaders submitting to the preferences of billionaire class.

Available Resources

Massive amounts of wealth exist. Soon after the billionaire released his essay, Oxfam revealed that the net worth of the top ten US fortune holders expanded by hundreds of billions during the previous twelve months. That money alone, the increment in the wealth of 10 people, is approximately ten times the annual amount required to end extreme poverty worldwide. What methods enabled such concentration of the world's money into their pockets? What prevents redistribution through appropriate revenue collection? The solution lies in their conversion of wealth into policy-making authority. As their wealth increases, the stronger their capacity to shape the state and economic system to their preferences, guaranteeing continued wealth accumulation. But Bill Gates says nothing in his essay about methods and sources for additional funds for both climate action and poverty relief could be located.

'The article seems designed as appeasement toward Donald Trump.' Bill Gates, right, with the Trumps at a private dinner for industry figures in Washington.

Rich-Poor Dynamic

There's a direct link between the deprivation Gates says concerns him and the fortunes he ignores. In the US, housing insecurity is achieving unprecedented levels, and so is the percentage of resources held by the ultra-rich. Even if this doesn't characterize Gates' specific methods, by holding down wages, racking up rents, busting trade unions and achieving lower taxes and diminished public funding, billionaires prosper while others experience hardship.

Study Results

A significant investigation in academic political journals, among the very few to have penetrated this secretive world, found that extremely wealthy individuals hold vastly distinct political perspectives from the great majority. The rich participants surveyed, completely unlike ordinary citizens, viewed government debt as paramount of the issues it listed, and ecological crisis as insignificant. They were significantly more prone to argue that social welfare programs and national health services should be decreased, and far less likely to believe that unemployed people merit reasonable生活质量, or that there should be increased oversight of energy firms, financial institutions and insurance providers. They were strongly against wealth redistribution.

Policy Impact

So whose views prevail? The few wealthy or the many citizens? Although the research occurred during the Obama administration, it found that extremely wealthy individuals enjoyed greater political access than regular individuals. How about today? I scarcely think I need to spell it out.

Missing Elements and Presumptions

Here's another crucial exclusion from the billionaire's article: at no point in its 5,000 words does it mention Donald Trump. Were Gates to do so, he'd have to recognize that an important foundation of his argument is unstable: decreasing expenses for eco-friendly innovations automatically creates ecological advancement. Certainly, it's positive that clean technology prices are falling dramatically than conventional power. But Trump and similar demagogues are doing everything they can to impede the transition.

In part due to these factors, traditional energy sources stay very profitable. This could be why, even though Gates states his organization sold all direct fossil fuel investments in 2019, its fossil fuel stock and bond holdings have, in fact, increased.

Mental Aspects

To Gates, overthrowing the power of the ultra-wealthy may be unthinkable. This isn't just about conflicting with his perspective. Based on his notable omissions regarding this topic, he might be literally incapable of thinking about it. This might indicate "wealth-induced cognitive distortion": a deep inability to understand others' perspectives. Even though billionaires present research challenges, drawing conclusions from studies about wealth's impact on thinking could suggest that obtaining enormous fortunes compares to cognitive damage. Fortunes seem to disturb particular brain operations, notably those concerning understanding and outlook.

Political Calculations

But perhaps there's also calculation here: his essay reads like nothing so much as a peace offering to Donald Trump. The former president clearly interpreted it this way: "We've defeated the climate change falsehood." Gates has confessed his total mistake. This demonstrated nerve, and we're thankful. MAGA!!!"

Historical Context

Gates has historically been mistaken on the issue, although not for Trump's stated reasons. He has continually trailed scientific consensus, echoing petroleum industry talking points (clean technology could decrease pollution only through enormous spending) significantly following their debunking. He has propagated misunderstanding and inaccuracies, like the baseless statement in his latest article that the intention behind Sri Lanka's failed prohibition on artificial fertilizers aimed at pollution decrease.

More Challenging Facts

Gates calls his essay Three Tough Truths About Climate. So here's another tough truth he studiously ignores. Should, as appears probable, vital planetary systems reach critical thresholds and quickly deteriorate, the effects on human life, ignoring the persistence of additional organisms (a subject he consistently omits), would ruin the consistent development he anticipates. Because environmental change is likely to proceed not in gradual and linear ways, but through rapid shifts, the conceivable consequences for people's quality of life are nearly impossible to anticipate. His position that all resources should follow existing data-driven assessments of human betterment, even if it seems logical, introduces in the face of systemic change a profound irrationality, {prompting us to ignore the greatest